Solution to homosexuals is by government executions according to Pastor.

[SkepticThinker]

"Is it me" clearly states an opinion, the rest of the question explain what the opinion is.

It's a question with an opinion embedded into it. An opinion, which could probably have been swayed with some evidence.

No but it's a start, do you really want to me quote all posts that go in same fashion?

Two or three would be a start, perhaps. One comment posed as a question doesn't constitute an entire thread of stereotyping against Christians. And it doesn't do anything to explain why you're stereotyping gay people.

The question posed to you was why are you stereotyping gay people? The answer appears to be that you are doing so in response to your perception of people stereotyping Christianity on this thread.

For the second time I gave the answer in my post #298

You had said, “yes I'm stereotyping because stereotyping is obviously the language of gay people and gay supporters as you can see for yourself in this thread.”

I responded to that, remember? What I said was, “The only person I see stereotyping gay people and making judgments based on those stereotypes of them, is you.”

(Also, it’s a rather strange comment that itself, is another generalization/stereotype. And one which is completely unrelated to whether or not people are stereotyping Christians on this thread, which is your contention.)


To which you replied, “Let me open your eyes, you have to look both way not just toward gay people.
This thread is full of stereotyping BS against Christianity, don't you see?”


To which I keep replying and asking … so you’re just stereotyping gay people to get back at people for supposedly stereotyping Christianity? Why?

Yes for real, why don't you give reference to post number to prove me wrong? it is so hard? am I asking too much?

Note that your question must precede post #333 which is where you claimed to be asking this question.

Because it’s in like, literally the last five or six posts to you, from this morning.

Posts #327, 331 and 334, at least.

And btw you ignored my post #336

I can’t watch videos right now, but the article has a video right at the very top of the page. Maybe try that out, if you don’t believe the quotes in the article.

 

[ppp]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia

 

[paradox]

Posts #327, 331 and 334, at least.

To which for the 3rd time I already gave you an answer in post #298
You asked "Why?" I answered "because..."

To which I keep replying and asking … so you’re just stereotyping gay people to get back at people for supposedly stereotyping Christianity? Why?

No, I'm not stereotyping for "supposedly stereotyping Christianity" but rather for "obvious stereotyping Christianity" which is a difference.
Why? OK, why twice, why why why, you just don't like my answer don't you?

Ever heard of "a wedge is knocked out by a wedge"?
The meaning of the proverb “They knock out a wedge with a wedge”

I can’t watch videos right now, but the article has a video right at the very top of the page. Maybe try that out, if you don’t believe the quotes in the article.

The article quotes something which the pastor did not say, thus my disbelief is justified. too bad you can't watch video to see for yourself as it is the only proof of what he really said.

 

[paradox]

Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia

For your information this is translated to:

is a formal fallacy of concluding from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements of the inverse from the original statement.

Good luck getting out of a loophole that you yourself created!
Because it goes against your post #339 which precedes my post #340.

Basically you proved your self wrong with your own post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To which for the 3rd time I already gave you an answer in post #298
You asked "Why?" I answered "because..."

No, I'm not stereotyping for "supposedly stereotyping Christianity" but rather for "obvious stereotyping Christianity" which is a difference.

There is no difference.

Why? OK, why twice, why why why, you just don't like my answer don't you?
Ever heard of "a wedge is knocked out by a wedge"?
The meaning of the proverb “They knock out a wedge with a wedge”

So, you're stereotyping gay people because somebody else stereotyped Christians. (And it wasn't even the person you're currently conversing with.) Do you think that's a good reason to stereotype an entire group of other people? Because someone else did it too? How does that follow and why do you consider that a valid argument for anything?

I keep asking because your answer doesn't make any logical sense to me. I have no idea why you think that's a valid argument. "Well, somebody else did something I don't like so I'm going to do it to other unrelated people to get back at the first person" is essentially what you're saying. It doesn't make sense. What is it that you hope to accomplish, with this hypocritical line of argumentation?

The article quotes something which the pastor did not say, thus my disbelief is justified. too bad you can't watch video to see for yourself as it is the only proof of what he really said.

What do you think he really said?

 

[syo]

Is it me, or is there an unusual amount of hate going on in Christianity today?

I used to have hate. Against christians.

 

[paradox]

There is no difference.

Of course there is a difference, "supposedly" implies lack of evidence, "obvious" is evidence based.
How could you equate these 2 things?

So, you're stereotyping gay people because somebody else stereotyped Christians. (And it wasn't even the person you're currently conversing with.) Do you think that's a good reason to stereotype an entire group of other people? Because someone else did it too? How does that follow and why do you consider that a valid argument for anything?

I keep asking because your answer doesn't make any logical sense to me.

If this doesn't make any sense to you then why don't you tell me how to knock out a wedge that makes sense?
I'm asking to see if there is something wrong with your reasoning or if you perhaps are trolling me.

What do you think he really said?

I don't need to think what he said, there is a video for everyone to see.
Are you going to say the video is false?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For example most people have learned to eat through a mouth, because it is reasonable and food tastes better that way. Not many try to eat trough their ear, even though ear is also hole in a head

We take it in through the mouth because that's the only way we can get it in us. It doesn't go in the ear because there is nothing able to digest food there or get it to where we absorb nutrients from our food.

Similarly, there are reasonable and unreasonable ways to satisfy sexual appetite. Some people develop a bad taste in sexuality that is not reasonable and not good for their health. Bad taste can develop if person has experiences that leads him to seek satisfaction in a way that is not reasonable. One can unlearn bad habits and one can also learn bad habits, they are not programmed to persons mind in the birth. If you disagree, please tell one example and how it was programmed?

Can you even support the idea that homosexuality is "bad taste" or "unreasonable" or "not good for their health"? I bet you can't.

That is why I say, people are not born gay, they are groomed to it. Which explains why LBGP... people want to push their alphabet propaganda for small children. That is the best time to mess their development and guide them to a bad taste.

LGBT teaches love. You religion teaches kids of a god who eternally damns everyone who doesn't worship and obey him and firmly asserts that everyone does deserve this punishment but it's only because of this god who is so "loving" he kills people by the hundreds and thousands, including the unborn, innocent children and his own son that we can get out of this damnation, even though he created it to begin with just to punish those nasty sinners, which is you, kiddo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course there is a difference, "supposedly" implies lack of evidence, "obvious" is evidence based.
How could you equate these 2 things?

Changing the adjective doesn't change much, in this discussion. You seem to think it's obvious, but so what?
All you could come up with was one single example in the entire thread. Just saying something is "obvious" doesn't mean you provided a bunch of evidence. All you did was change the adjective.

What there is a big difference between is "one guy on the thread might have said something that stereotypes Christians" versus "this entire thread for the last 16 pages has been all about people stereotyping Christians." See the difference? Your response to this was to stereotype gay people, because well, somebody else is stereotyping somebody and you don't like it. I find that rather bizarre and you've done nothing so far to clarify to me what sort of point you're trying to make other than "somebody else did something I don't like so now I'm going to do it too." Do you think that's a reasonable argument?

If this doesn't make any sense to you then why don't you tell me how to knock out a wedge that makes sense?
I'm asking to see if there is something wrong with your reasoning or if you perhaps are trolling me.

Good grief, we are talking about YOUR reasoning, or lack thereof. You've done nothing to clarify why you're doing it, or why you think it's a reasonable or useful position, despite my questioning throughout several posts now.

From what I can tell, the only "argument" you're making is "you did it, so I'm doing it too. Nah nah."

I don't need to think what he said, there is a video for everyone to see.
Are you going to say the video is false?

Do you ever answer any questions. Like, ever??

 

[paradox]

Changing the adjective doesn't change much, in this discussion. You seem to think it's obvious, but so what?
All you could come up with was one single example in the entire thread. Just saying something is "obvious" doesn't mean you provided a bunch of evidence. All you did was change the adjective.

What there is a big difference between is "one guy on the thread might have said something that stereotypes Christians" versus "this entire thread for the last 16 pages has been all about people stereotyping Christians." See the difference? Your response to this was to stereotype gay people, because well, somebody else is stereotyping somebody and you don't like it. I find that rather bizarre and you've done nothing so far to clarify to me what sort of point you're trying to make other than "somebody else did something I don't like so now I'm going to do it too." Do you think that's a reasonable argument?

If I go find some more evidence in this thread will you accept it or reject just like you reject the first one?

Good grief, we are talking about YOUR reasoning, or lack thereof. You've done nothing to clarify why you're doing it, or why you think it's a reasonable or useful position, despite my questioning throughout several posts now.

From what I can tell, the only "argument" you're making is "you did it, so I'm doing it too. Nah nah."

Why do you refuse to answer my question if your reasoning is fine?
Refusing to answer to question implies either you're hiding something or you're afraid of something.

I have so far given you 2 related answers to same question but you're unable to see reason,
it therefore makes sense that you allow your reasoning to put to test don't you agree?

Do you ever answer any questions. Like, ever??

Of course I do, I did it twice, it's rather you who refuse to answer to question don't you see?

 

[Madmogwai]

Oh, come on! Let's show some positivity. Have you not heard of the many Christians helping out in war zones, in groups like Christian Aid, Tearfund, Salvation Army, World Vision, Beyond the Streets etc etc.
?

Well it’s a good thing they don’t follow all the Bibles teachings.
The bottom line is with hateful things within the Bible, Genocide, Wars, Sacrifice, incest, slavery, murder, contradictions and lies, a few good dead’s does not cut it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I go find some more evidence in this thread will you accept it or reject just like you reject the first one?

What I want is for you to explain why your response to someone else stereotyping a group of people (which apparently has upset you), is to do the exact same thing to another entire group of completely unrelated people. What are you hoping to accomplish with that?

Why do you refuse to answer my question if your reasoning is fine?
Refusing to answer to question implies either you're hiding something or you're afraid of something.

Because. We. Are. Talking. About. YOUR. Reasoning. As. I. Just. Said.

We are talking about why YOU are doing something.

I have so far given you 2 related answers to same question but you're unable to see reason,
it therefore makes sense that you allow your reasoning to put to test don't you agree?
Of course I do, I did it twice, it's rather you who refuse to answer to question don't you see?

Apparently I have to repeat myself again ...

You've done nothing to clarify why you're doing it, or why you think it's a reasonable or useful position, despite my questioning throughout several posts now.

From what I can tell, the only "argument" you're making is "you did it, so I'm doing it too. Nah nah."

 

[paradox]

Because. We. Are. Talking. About. YOUR. Reasoning. As. I. Just. Said.
We are talking about why YOU are doing something.

Just a second, is this some sort of a police investigation?
You act as if "I'm the one who asks questions not you"

btw. I gave you my answer to same question probably like 10 times over and over again and you keep asking the same question indefinitely,
this is how police questions their subjects if you didn't know to catch subject in a lie.

Your question is "why do I stereotype?", and you keep asking the same over and over again.
For the 100th time my answer is in post #298

yes I'm stereotyping because stereotyping is obviously the language of gay people and gay supporters as you can see for yourself in this thread.

You said you don't see reason here, so what exactly is unclear with my answer?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just a second, is this some sort of a police investigation?
You act as if "I'm the one who asks questions not you"

btw. I gave you my answer to same question probably like 10 times over and over again and you keep asking the same question indefinitely,
this is how police questions their subjects if you didn't know to catch subject in a lie.

Your question is "why do I stereotype?", and you keep asking the same over and over again.
For the 100th time my answer is in post #298


You said you don't see reason here, so what exactly is unclear with my answer?

Apparently it's an endless inquiry about why you're doing something.

So you stereotype to get back at other people for stereotyping.
Sorry, but that's not rational and it doesn't make for a logical argument. It is hypocritical though. And juvenile. And shallow.

 

[paradox]

So you stereotype to get back at other people for stereotyping.

No, like I said I'm stereotyping because it's a language that stereotyping people understand the best,
they understand it because that's what they do and have experience with and I want just like anyone else to be understood.

Sorry, but that's not rational and it doesn't make for a logical argument. It is hypocritical though. And juvenile. And shallow.

What would be rational behavior then?
What do you think would be better?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, like I said I'm stereotyping because it's a language that stereotyping people understand the best,

they understand it because that's what they do and have experience with and I want just like anyone else to be understood.

Sorry but that's ridiculous to me.

You're demonizing an entire group of people because you think another, unrelated group of people have been stereotyped against.

What would be rational behavior then?
What do you think would be better?

Not stereotyping just because someone else did it. Obviously you think that stereotyping is wrong, right? So why do it?

 

[paradox]

You're demonizing an entire group of people because you think another, unrelated group of people have been stereotyped against.

I do not just think some group is demonized, it is rather obvious as I already told you, there is evidence.

Not stereotyping just because someone else did it.

Would that be effective at proving stereotyping wrong?
What I asked you really is if there is more effective way?

Obviously you think that stereotyping is wrong, right? So why do it?

Yes I think it's wrong.
Why do it? see that's your problem..
Stereotyping without being stereotyped is wrong.
Stereotyping as a method to prove Stereotyping is wrong is prudent method.
That's where you confuse things because you equate 2 kinds of Stereotyping.

 

[ppp]

For your information this is translated to:

Good luck getting out of a loophole that you yourself created!
Because it goes against your post #339 which precedes my post #340.

Basically you proved your self wrong with your own post.

What are you talking about? You pasted a random fallacy, so I pasted one back. I thought you wanted to play.

 

[paradox]

What are you talking about? You pasted a random fallacy, so I pasted one back. I thought you wanted to play.

lol, I didn't paste random wikipedia stuff to play with you but thanks for letting me know that you pasted false fallacy.

 

[ppp]

lol, I didn't paste random wikipedia stuff to play with you but thanks for letting me know that you pasted false fallacy.

Nah. Its an actual fallacy.